B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:20 pm The accurate understanding of biblical Hebrew never ceased over the millennia.

What always comes to mind in such situations is the story about Hillel (bShabbat 31a):

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:20 pm Is this "systematic grammar" certified to be correct?

His grammar covers 24 pages, of which 8 are tables of verbs without nikkud and that are full of errors. For example, on page 367 (the first page of tables) the qal yiqtol 2fs is written as תקילי instead of the correct תקטלי (that is, תִּקְטְלִי). On the same page, the qal passive participle mp is written as קטןולים instead of קטולים (that is, קְטוּלִים). Also, the piel participle mp is written as צקטלים instead of מקטלים (that is, מְקַטְּלִים). It's rife with mistakes (these are only a few of them from that one page). Compare this to the hundreds of pages that Gesenius used to cover the grammar, syntax, and accidence of the language and the very few typographical errors there are in that text.

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:41 pm

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:20 pm The accurate understanding of biblical Hebrew never ceased over the millennia.

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:20 pm Is this "systematic grammar" certified to be correct?

His grammar covers 24 pages, of which 8 are tables of verbs without nikkud and that are full of errors. For example, on page 367 (the first page of tables) the qal yiqtol 2fs is written as תקילי instead of the correct תקטלי (that is, תִּקְטְלִי). On the same page, the qal passive participle mp is written as קטןולים instead of קטולים (that is, קְטוּלִים). Also, the piel participle mp is written as צקטלים instead of מקטלים (that is, מְקַטְּלִים). It's rife with mistakes (these are only a few of them from that one page). Compare this to the hundreds of pages that Gesenius used to cover the grammar, syntax, and accidence of the language and the very few typographical errors there are in that text.

Dear Jason:

Thanks for catching some typos for me. I’ve been asking people to help me out on this, and you’re the first to catch typos in the charts. (Others have caught a few typos elsewhere.)

I have dyslexia which often causes me to mistype. In English spellcheck is my good friend, often catching typos. Because of dyslexia, I see what I intended to type, while spellcheck catches what I actually typed. What’s really weird about dyslexia is that it even affects my handwriting.

I don’t have spellcheck for Hebrew.

Thanks again for catching those typos.

Comparing my work with Gesenius is like comparing apples with oranges. Because I don’t deal with the points and all the weirdnesses they introduce, that cuts out maybe half of what Gesenius dealt with. Secondly, I don’t deal with having to explain away where Tanakh doesn’t follow the medieval Tiberian grammar that Gesenius followed. My grammar doesn’t need to posit different rules for poetry and quoted conversations. And I’ve been told that my understanding of grammar is not unique to me.

Gesenius had editors to help catch his typos. I don’t. If you see more of mine, please go ahead and mention them.

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:20 pm The accurate understanding of biblical Hebrew never ceased over the millennia.

LOL!

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:20 pm

You have a copy of my dictionary. In the back, in the appendixes, there is a systematic grammar that can be applied to all of Tanakh. Have you looked?

Is this "systematic grammar" certified to be correct?

By whom? Check it out yourself.

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 12:20 pm

Nope. But it changed how people understood the Bible.

Different people aim to understand the Bible differently according to their different backgrounds.

Thanks for making my case for me. That there are different understandings contradicts your claim above.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl writes

Check it out yourself.

I opened it at random at page 356 to see:
"A participle in the Piel binyan often has the force of a place where an action takes
place, e.g. Isaiah 30:14 מכתת the place where repeated hammering takes place,
namely a metal smithy (in this case a blacksmith’s), a place where one is
confident Proverbs 14:25 and a mortar where one grinds grain Proverbs 27:22."
The first thing to catch my attention is that "participle" is English grammar not Biblical.
Then I looked up Isaiah 30:14
וּשְׁבָרָהּ כְּשֵׁבֶר נֵבֶל יוֹצְרִים כָּתוּת לֹא יַחְמֹל וְלֹא יִמָּצֵא בִמְכִתָּתוֹ חֶרֶשׂ לַחְתּוֹת אֵשׁ מִיָּקוּד וְלַחְשֹׂף מַיִם מִגֶּבֶא
NIV: "It will break in pieces like pottery, shattered so mercilessly that among its pieces not a fragment will be found for taking coals from a hearth or scooping water out of a cistern”
and I did not see there any indication as to what you say:
"e.g. Isaiah 30:14 מכתת the place where repeated hammering takes place,
namely a metal smithy (in this case a blacksmith’s), a place where one is
confident Proverbs 14:25 and a mortar where one grinds grain Proverbs 27:22."
I did not find anything in Proverbs 14:25.
In Proverbs 27:22
אִם תִּכְתּוֹשׁ אֶת הָאֱוִיל בַּמַּכְתֵּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת בַּעֱלִי
I do see מַּכְתֵּשׁ, 'mortar'.
It needs careful revising and editing.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:01 pm Karl writes

Check it out yourself.

I opened it at random at page 356 to see:
"A participle in the Piel binyan often has the force of a place where an action takes
place, e.g. Isaiah 30:14 מכתת the place where repeated hammering takes place,
namely a metal smithy (in this case a blacksmith’s), a place where one is
confident Proverbs 14:25 and a mortar where one grinds grain Proverbs 27:22."
The first thing to catch my attention is that "participle" is English grammar not Biblical.

“Participle” is the English term used for a set of Hebrew words. That was the word used in Weingreen and by my professor in class. It has also been used repeatedly here on this forum and you never complained until now.

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:01 pm Then I looked up Isaiah 30:14
וּשְׁבָרָהּ כְּשֵׁבֶר נֵבֶל יוֹצְרִים כָּתוּת לֹא יַחְמֹל וְלֹא יִמָּצֵא בִמְכִתָּתוֹ חֶרֶשׂ לַחְתּוֹת אֵשׁ מִיָּקוּד וְלַחְשֹׂף מַיִם מִגֶּבֶא
NIV: "It will break in pieces like pottery, shattered so mercilessly that among its pieces not a fragment will be found for taking coals from a hearth or scooping water out of a cistern”

First of all. translation is not evidence. I doubt that a single one of the translators of the NIV ever stepped into a black-smithy. Have you? Have you done any blacksmithing? Have you ever had the fun of taking a red hot piece of steel out of the fire, and brought it to an anvil, then with a few taps of a hammer forming it into a shape you want? Then if you had made something that you want to case harden, you carefully heat it not red hot but to the right amount then dunk it in brackish water taken from a salt marsh as that’s the best water to harden steel?

But then, are all the wrong points in this verse evidence that none of the Masoretes knew anything about blacksmithing either?

Then for an ancient black-smithy, they had workers חרש to pump the bellows נבל and to rake לחתות the lit fire אש מיקוד and to draw ולחסף brackish water from the marsh מים מגבא. This verse sounds like an abandoned black-smithy to me.

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:01 pm a place where one is confident Proverbs 14:25

Sorry, it looks as if you have found another typo, and I don’t remember the correct reference. Wrong numbers are some of the easiest typos to make and the hardest to catch. Thanks.

Isaac Fried wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:01 pmand a mortar where one grinds grain Proverbs 27:22."
אִם תִּכְתּוֹשׁ אֶת הָאֱוִיל בַּמַּכְתֵּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת בַּעֱלִי
I do see מַּכְתֵּשׁ, 'mortar'.
It needs careful revising and editing.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

Karl W. Randolph.

Hi Karl,

I didn't find enough time this week to continue with this talk, but I hope (or guess) I'll find it this weekend.
(and meanwhile, I see that you all switched to another subject).

**
Anyway, without saying my opinion about all of that grammar talk...
maybe you referred to the word in proverbs 14:26 מבטח?

Karl writes

First of all. translation is not evidence.

I am reading the original Hebrew text
וּשְׁבָרָהּ כְּשֵׁבֶר נֵבֶל יוֹצְרִים כָּתוּת לֹא יַחְמֹל וְלֹא יִמָּצֵא בִמְכִתָּתוֹ חֶרֶשׂ לַחְתּוֹת אֵשׁ מִיָּקוּד וְלַחְשֹׂף מַיִם מִגֶּבֶא
not the English.

I doubt that a single one of the translators of the NIV ever stepped into a black-smithy. Have you? Have you done any blacksmithing? Have you ever had the fun of taking a red hot piece of steel out of the fire, and brought it to an anvil, then with a few taps of a hammer forming it into a shape you want? Then if you had made something that you want to case harden, you carefully heat it not red hot but to the right amount then dunk it in brackish water taken from a salt marsh as that’s the best water to harden steel?
But then, are all the wrong points in this verse evidence that none of the Masoretes knew anything about blacksmithing either?
Then for an ancient black-smithy, they had workers חרש to pump the bellows נבל and to rake לחתות the lit fire אש מיקוד and to draw ולחסף brackish water from the marsh מים מגבא. This verse sounds like an abandoned black-smithy to me.

Now go figure it out. It just so happened that for high school I went to a vocational school
ישיבת תורה ומלאכה, כפר אברהם
in the section of metal working. I took a class in blacksmithing, נפחות, and I actually became an expert in hammering red hot pieces of steel, held by tongs, into all kinds interesting and useful shapes.

Sorry, it looks as if you have found another typo, and I don’t remember the correct reference. Wrong numbers are some of the easiest typos to make and the hardest to catch. Thanks.

There are many like this, and it needs to be corrected.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com

ducky wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:11 pm Hi Karl,

maybe you referred to the word in proverbs 14:26 מבטח?

Yes I did. Thank you.

Karl W. Randolph.

I’ll have to eat humble pie. I finally did what I should have done at the beginning. I should have looked up in a concordance the exact uses of הרה. But no, I accepted Ralph’s description that he got from Biblehub that הרה is an adjective.

But then in my reading, I came across 1 Samuel 4:19 that has the same construction, though for a wife instead of a virgin. Then I did what I should have done in the first place—I looked up הרה in a concordance. It looks as if Biblical Hebrew didn’t have an adjective for “pregnant”, rather just a noun “pregnant woman”. We can see that in its use as a stand-alone noun referring to pregnant women, e.g. Isaiah 26:17, Jeremiah 31:8 and in plural 2 Kings 8:12 and Hosea 14:1..

Remember, translation is not the same as the original language, and in translation sometimes changing a noun into an adjective makes better sense in the target language than strict literal translation.

So what do you all think? Does this clear up Ralph’s original question?

Karl W. Randolph.

"The almah is a pregnant woman and is bearing a son." ??

No. Notice: תואר is short for שם תואר (adjective).

BDB's entry for הָרָה:

הָרָה adj.f. pregnant—; abs. ה׳ Gn 16:11 + 10 times; cstr. הֲרַת Je 20:17; pl. cstr. הָרוֹת Am 1:13; sf. הָרוֹתֶיהָ 2 K 15:16; הָרֹתֵיהֶם 2 K 8:12;—pregnant, as attrib., אִשָּׁה ה׳ Ex 21:22; as pred. Gn 38:24 (לִזְנוּנִים), v 25 (לְאִישׁ), 1 S 4:19 2 S 11:5 Is 7:14 ( + וְיֹלֶדֶת); in phr. הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ Gn 16:11 (on resemblance to Is 7:14 cf. PetersHbr Apr. 1885, 243; Apr. 1886, 175), Ju 13:5, 7; = subst. pregnant women, women with child Am 1:13 2 K 8:12; 15:16 Je 31:8, and, in sim., Is 26:17; once of womb וְרַחְמָהּ הֲרַת עוֹלָם Je 20:17.

So, yes: can be used as both a noun and an adjective. Interesting that BDB gives some of the same places for "pregnant woman" as most of Karl's.

Nevertheless, does saying someone's "pregnant" preclude "pregnant woman" from its understanding?

Genesis 16:11
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יַהְוֶה הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל כִּי־שָׁמַע יַהְוֶה אֶל־עָנְיֵךְ
And the Angel of Yahweh said to her, "Behold, you are [pregnant/a pregnant woman], and shall give birth to a son..."

Either works in this passage, IMHO. Even in English to say "she's pregnant" would more or less include the understanding "she's a pregnant woman" - one can't really be one without the other!

Furthermore, on the subject of עַלְמָה, I remembered reading an article in the Journal of Semitic Studies about it; thankfully I was able to find the article I was thinking of (Is the Choice of παρθένος in LXX Isa. 7:14 Theologically Motivated?), and was able to find that Rodrigo Franklin De Sousa has the same one up on Academia: link. Thought it'd be worth a read for everyone.

Edit:
Looking further at this, I mean Genesis 16:11 and Isaiah 7:14 are nearly exactly the same in our disputed section here:

Gen 16:11
הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל

Isa 7:14
הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּאֵל

Only differences are הָעַלְמָה replaces -ךְ, and obviously עִמָּנוּאֵל instead of יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל (Great Isaiah Scroll has עמנואל as one word/name; never two separate ones).

Both passages are more or less exactly the same both in consonants and meaning.